Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The current leadership doesn't even give this lip service anymore. Hence, my contemplation of changing party affiliation.

Replace it to what? Peace and Freedom?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is an interesting question, evocative perhaps of Chadha. If it would take another vote of Congress to impeach a judge, then what difference would it make? So to give the statute effect, it might be that Shelby means that someone can impeach a judge by going to court to enforce the statute. But then a judge could narrow the effect of the jurisdiction-limiting provision by ruling that whatever the judge did was not bad behavior. But maybe that statute would be unconstitutional, under a sort of non-delegation doctrine. So does the whole thing get tossed?

I don't see how it delegates to a court. Are you saying that a dissatisfied litigant could simply go into another court and say a judge should be impeached by the court? I can't imagine that would be permitted by any court--it's quite clear that the sole power of impeachment is in the House and the power to try all impeachment cases lies in the Senate.

I think fringey's on the right track, but I don't think that any vote would be compelled. If so, couldn't Congress have passed a statute saying that "any president who lies under oath shall be impeached", and then on that basis alone impeached and convicted clinton? methinks not.

Now, I suppose there's some possible value in the provision as fringe suggests, which is that exercising jurisdiction improperly gives rise to an inference, or a presumption, of a high crime/misdemeanor/non-good behavior, such that a milquetoast rep. could say "while I think that the courts should be able to decide cases, it's quite clear that judge slothrop here violated the statute passed by congress and for that reason I vote to impeach." In other words, it's a bootstrap cover.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't see how it delegates to a court. Are you saying that a dissatisfied litigant could simply go into another court and say a judge should be impeached by the court? I can't imagine that would be permitted by any court--it's quite clear that the sole power of impeachment is in the House and the power to try all impeachment cases lies in the Senate.

I think fringey's on the right track, but I don't think that any vote would be compelled. If so, couldn't Congress have passed a statute saying that "any president who lies under oath shall be impeached", and then on that basis alone impeached and convicted clinton? methinks not.

Now, I suppose there's some possible value in the provision as fringe suggests, which is that exercising jurisdiction improperly gives rise to an inference, or a presumption, of a high crime/misdemeanor/non-good behavior, such that a milquetoast rep. could say "while I think that the courts should be able to decide cases, it's quite clear that judge slothrop here violated the statute passed by congress and for that reason I vote to impeach." In other words, it's a bootstrap cover.

Uh, you are putting a lot of thought into this. The guy couldn't even get cosponsors. A lot of total bs bills get proposed . . .

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
A lot of total bs bills get proposed . . .

Yet, frighteningly, some also get passed. Pub. L. No. 109-3, for example.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
Replace it to what? Peace and Freedom?

Indy

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yet, frighteningly, some also get passed. Pub. L. No. 109-3, for example.

could I have either the long or the short name?

anyway, stop fucking with my happy place. if you are talking about the terri schaivo thing, that's not nearly as far-reaching.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The Photos as a whole seem to accurately depict the war in Iraq. If that makes them anti-war to anyone, that tells you what that person's attitude is to the war in Iraq.

Frankly, there aren't very many heroic acts in war the way it is fought today. US strategy is to overwhelm the enemy whenever possible and to minimize risk to US forces. And we plan pretty well, and keep our people as far out of the line of fire as possible most of the time. I'm sure every photographer in Iraq would love to catch the very rare occassions when acts of heroism are needed in battle, because those photos would SELL!

On US soldiers helping Iraqis, we've pulled in our Civil Assistance missions because they were too risky. CA is strong in Afghanistan, and a very big part of the overall mission, but no one wants to buy photos of Afghanistan because it is not the story. But in Iraq, CA is virtually non-existent and so most soldiers are not engaged in helping Iraqis on a regular basis. Again, many do, but often times they are violating orders when they do and don't want a photographer around. (For example, doctors have been under orders not to provide assistance to Iraqi civilians unless they are injured by US troops -- any photo showing a doctor aiding a civilian is either going to be captioned "Physician tends to Civilian Injured by US Fire" or is going to get that physician in a hell of a lot of trouble. They are supposed to be saving their supplies to assist US personnel.)

Oh. Thanks.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
could I have either the long or the short name?

anyway, stop fucking with my happy place. if you are talking about the terri schaivo thing, that's not nearly as far-reaching.

How many cases call into question whether god is the supreme authority? It's not all first amendment cases . . .

and, yeah, 109-3 is the schiavo bill. 3 months and 3 bills. hard at work. can we fire them all?

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/002532.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/002532.html

It's frankly beyond me that anyone who would caption this photo with a reference to "securing Fallujah" could complain about media bias.



By your standards, this picture is patently anti-American, Hank.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

What's the over/under on DeLay stepping down? Two weeks? Three? Am I being too hasty?

Less, what'd'you say?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's frankly beyond me that anyone who would caption this photo with a reference to "securing Fallujah" could complain about media bias.



By your standards, this picture is patently anti-American, Hank.

Why? It's pretty colors, and I think we made it that way.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What's the over/under on DeLay stepping down? Two weeks? Three? Am I being too hasty?

Too hasty. He's survived this long . . . must not be perceived as enough of a liability to the party yet. I would say before the next election season gears up, though, so probably late this year, early next year.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/002532.html

Nice, but not really Pulitzer material.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dimwit. I didn't question who picked who won, I questioned who entered. AP sent 20 1 sided pictures. AP is a big press source, right?

Ah, I missed this post. Your point that the AP is biased because of which photos it decided to submit for a journalism award is too stupid even to consider. I wouldn't have wasted any more time on the subject.